Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:12-cv-09058_de265> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:12-cv-09058_de265 RegisterActionDate "2016-10-23" @default.
- ilnd;;1:12-cv-09058_de265 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiffs' motion to compel 227 forensic examination of Wittstrom's various electronic devices is denied. The sparse factual presentation by Plaintiffs does not show that Wittstrom deleted those particular communications in bad faith, and does not justify an intrusive examination of all of the content in all of Wittstrom's electronic communications, including (as Plaintiffs propose) for communications with Tannehill that do not involve Vyasil. The use of keyword searches in this context is cold comfort given the scope of what Plaintiffs propose and the mixture of personal communications with business. Separately, Plaintiffs have moved to modify the expert discovery deadline 253 , seeking time to disclose an expert report on the cost to replace Plaintiffs' systems. After reviewing the motion, response, and reply, as well as the attached exhibits, the motion is granted. Although the parties could have surfaced this dispute sooner in the expert discovery period, and indeed Plaintiffs could have sought their own analysis of the servers earlier, the content of the servers is an important point of contention in this lawsuit. Also, the defense expert report from Forensicon did refer to some files (aside from the Skype logs) as if the defense expert had retrieved them in a format that permitted the expert to execute them. E.g., R. 258-2 at 3 ("There are also.ASPX files which are used to create buttons, forms, and content on a website.") (Relatedly, the defense says that there are no other files to disclose, R. 258 at 2-3, but to be clear, the Court emphasizes that the defense is obligated to disclose any underlying native files in exactly the same way that the expert retrieved them; the defense contends that it has done that already.) On all other expert discovery (aside from the corporate-veil issue earlier bifurcated), the parties shall proceed on the original schedule, R. 225, so depositions must finish by 12/12/2016. On the costs of replacement of Plaintiffs' systems, Plaintiffs shall disclose their expert report by 11/30/2016. If Plaintiffs want to make another effort to disclose an expert report on the underlying files themselves (that is, a Plaintiffs' expert who is able to retrieve and to analyze them) or on the purported inaccessibility of the files (this discovery order is *not* the equivalent of the Court finding that the files are inaccessible), then Plaintiffs must do that simultaneous with the additional disclosure, that is, by 11/30/2016. The defense's responsive expert report, if any, is due by 12/30/2016. The status hearing of 10/24/2016 is reset to 11/28/2016 at 10:30 a.m. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 10/23/2016)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:12-cv-09058_de265 AdministrativeID "262" @default.
- ilnd;;1:12-cv-09058_de265 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:12-cv-09058_de265 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:12-cv-09058_de230 @default.
- ilnd;;1:12-cv-09058_de265 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:12-cv-09058_de256 @default.